Opinion: A fresh start for the SRC? Part I
by Helen Gym on Oct 31 2011 Posted in Commentary
There’s been favorable consensus about the new mayoral appointees to the School Reform Commission – Wendell Pritchett and Lorene Cary. Like their predecessors, they come with stellar credentials and reputations. They have also acknowledged the need to re-earn the public trust, an issue that incoming gubernatorial appointee Pedro Ramos has made an explicit priority.
But news about last week’s SRC executive session showed how challenging that effort can be, even with people as conscientious as Pritchett and Cary.
At the start of last Wednesday afternoon's SRC meeting, District General Counsel Michael Davis made a longer-than-usual announcement about the SRC's standard executive session. He informed the public that the SRC – currently composed of interim Chair Pritchett, Cary, and Joseph Dworetzky – met privately in executive session with city solicitor Shelly Smith and city integrity officer Joan Markman.
Davis explained that the purpose of the meeting was "so all members could discuss issues related to SRC operations and how meetings will go forward." He referenced recommendations arising from a "report" by Markman and said the SRC "will review various policies and practices to determine how best to go forward."
The explanation stopped there.
As most Notebook readers know, the Markman report Davis referenced was no ordinary report. Last month, Markman issued a scathing indictment of the machinations by former SRC Chair Robert Archie and state Rep. Dwight Evans to reverse a decision involving a multi-million dollar school contract for Martin Luther King High School. Also implicated in that scandal were former Superintendent Arlene Ackerman and Acting Superintendent Leroy Nunery II.
No details of the meeting were offered. None of the SRC commissioners commented on the session. The substance of Markman's comments is not known – nor Smith's. Markman did not include recommendations in her public report. Hence, no one in the public knows what top city officials and the current SRC think about the ethical issues that plagued the old SRC – much less how they plan to fix them.
The public was left as it frequently is: back in the dark.
Some credit is due. The new SRC appointees are clearly striving for a different tone to the SRC meetings. It was a change for the better that District Counsel Davis gave more than a one-sentence summary of the executive session. He also revealed who was in the room for it – more than we've had in the past.
But it's not enough for the language around the SRC to change if problematic practices do not.
The King scandal shocked even jaded Philadelphians with the brazenness of high-level interference in a District contract, the impunity with which such actions were taken (who can forget Rep. Evans' “bulldog on a bone” description?), and the complicit silence of top-level District officials even after the Notebook and other media started to report on what had actually happened. According to Ackerman, it contributed to her falling out of favor with the Nutter administration and the SRC. Many observers attributed the overhaul of the SRC in part to this scandal.
So why hold a closed-door discussion about a major issue that rocked the very notion of the SRC’s purpose, integrity, and commitment to the public interest? Why not have an open and public conversation about any recommendations Markman may have stemming from the report – recommendations she has never put forth publicly?
I’m not even clear how this discussion met the standards for an executive session, much less the spirit of Pennsylvania's Sunshine law, which requires government bodies to do all their business in public, except for a few specific topics such as litigation.
The SRC executive sessions have long been a sore point for District observers, who questioned a practice where the SRC met as a full body behind closed doors for hours on end, then voted on resolutions with little substantial dialogue.
In this particular case, not only did the SRC hold an extensive executive session - per usual - but they also met with public officials about a very public issue. If this new SRC is to strike out into new territory, it must break this practice.
A public discussion of the report - especially any recommendations for change - could have been a critical step toward healing and rebuilding of trust. It could have been a moment for us to know where our commissioners stand on challenging issues that they may face again. The discussion could have been a opportunity for the SRC and District to tell the public how they plan to ensure that nothing like the King scandal happens again.
Maybe a productive discussion of these important issues did take place behind closed doors.
But the point is that we, the public, do not know.
Comments (15)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 14:22.
I hope you are registered to speak this Wednesday with a condensed 3 minute version as this needs to be said to their faces so they can't ignore it!
Submitted by Teach (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 16:41.
I agree. Let's see how they respond to you directly. We'll learn a lot about this new group from how they handle this sort of direct questioning.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 18:40.
Right on Helen. Your observations are laser focused as usual. You are the articulate voice of the concerned citizens of Philadelphia. We are behind you. Please continue to advocate and support the children. If we allow the SRC to operate as before we can only expect the same unacceptable results. Thank you for being our voice of reason!
Submitted by Phantom Poster (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 20:07.
Well said, Helen, but I think we should reserve judgment until all of the new members are seated. I am hopeful that the new chairman will embrace openness regarding how the commission does business.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 22:09.
Pedro is a good guy as I know him personally. He is not out of the Archie ilk of robbing from the poor to give to Archie, Evans, Nutter, Gamble, Williams mold. I think I just made a case against Pedro being successful. The crooks will descend on him the same as they did with Heidi Ramirez. Like Heidi, Pedro will fight back but eventually, he will have had enough and quit. Phila. may well be the most corrupt city in the country and the devil named Corbett loves it all. We have met the enemy and it is we for allowing all this to continue. BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, we should stand and fight to rid ourselves of the joke called SRC and go after Corbett's budget with the same, if not more intensity. Helen Gym for Mayor and I'm not kidding. Nutter is either the dumbest mayor in the history of the world or as corrupt as the rest of them. He ain't dumb so...............................
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 22:21.
Helen--the truth is and unfortunately, we ALL know it, that only the faces will change, not the corruption inherent in the SRC format. They're bought and paid for cronies with the exception of Pedro Ramos, who like yourself, has integrity. We all know that Evans, Williams and the rest of them, yes, Nutter too, will continue to rip off the people here anyway they can, including money for schools. In 60 years on the planet, I've never seen the blatant, over the top, corruption with impunity, that I see with these folks. They simply don't care and when you don't care, you have nothing to lose. I agree that Corbett loves all of it as it plays right into his hands to dissolve the real schools and allow the corporations--Charter Businesses--to take over. Big money for the rich and hopelessness for the middle and poor classes.
Submitted by Helen Gym on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 13:12.
I don't think there's any evidence that the new SRC commissioners are "bought and paid for cronies" who don't care about the schools. The problem is - and the point of the post - is that the SRC has repeatedly engaged in a set of practices that consistently challenge the ability of commissioners to break those very practices. In an issue like the MLK scandal, where the very notion of the SRC's integrity was up in the air, it's critical that the new commissioners consider whether the importance of having this private discussion outweighs their ability to build trust with the public.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 13:55.
Helen--Watch and see what happens. Within 3 months, the same old, same old will exist up close and personal for all people with eyes to see. You are far more optimistic than I. When you speak about evidence, you need to go no farther than Nunnery being in charge after all he has done. Nunnery and Ackerman are different sides of the same hand. You should know that. Plus with cretins like Gamble, Evans, Williams, and here it comes, Nutter around, there is no hope as far as I can see.
Submitted by Helen Gym on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 08:48.
I am optimistic, but not naively so. I do believe Pritchett and Cary - and please note that my response above was specifically to them - have an opportunity to show where they stand. The SRC has historically had bad practices, and the new SRC needs a chance to review which practices work and which ones don't. Is this specific executive session the worst thing to happen? Not even remotely. The more serious challenges will be over the budget and school closings. It's right to call folks' attention to this but it seems like we should save the judgment for the things that really are going to matter.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 09:49.
Helen--I hope you're right--I really do but when they replace Ackerman with Nunnery, that alone speaks volumes about their agenda. I admit I am jaded by these folks and while I admire your optimism, I find it to be unfounded faith rather than supported by facts. I am a business person and I see the agenda and it ain't about kids. Charters, Vouchers, SRC, Breaking of Unions and Contracts are very serious problems for a free society where education is a given, a right. The natural extension of this business model is destruction of the middle and poor classes under the evil pretext of school choice. I personally know 4 charter providers and there's not an ounce of decency among them. I was asked to become involved by 2 of them and money was the ONLY subject. not once did kids come up. In any case, we shall see who's right. In 60 years, I have never seen such abuse of the natural rights of humans in this country.
Submitted by Helen Gym on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 09:57.
I would never stake the claim about being the one who's "right" whatever that means in the crazy context we're living in. We are in agreement about almost everything. Perhaps what we're not in agreement about is how soon we begin writing certain people off, but we are most definitely in agreement about needing to do something about the situation we're in. Whereever the SRC stands, even if we had the best superintendent in the country, none of us could and should sit back and watch what happens.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:45.
Thank You. I look and see IMHOTEPS all around and they're called Charter Schools. I agree that I don't know the new SRC members except for Pedro Ramos--who is a good guy--and I admit I am being unfair to write them off but the SRC Model itself is corrupt so I doubt they can fix it. It was designed that way, of course. I just feel badly for the kids and parents who are being fed this nonsense by snake oil community salesmen like Gamble, Williams and Evans. The Tea Party mentality has to be stopped BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. As big a disappointment as Obama has been, imagine how ugly things will be under a Republican Administration in these times.
Submitted by Educrat (not verified) on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 08:49.
Thank you again Helen, very good points. The new appointees look to be motivated by the right things, but I'm not sure there is the "nuts and bolts" knowledge of this district, nor the necessary knowledge of the "dirt". Hard critical thinking and toughness? Things perhaps that have caused such political shenanigans in Washington D.C. I'm not hopeful for real change. The findings of the Markman report now are being faded, and there are no real consequences for the wrongdoing. The disillusionment is definately harmful going forward.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 15:27.
Yes, it's the same people lining their collective pockets with a token change here and there. Nunnery was complicit and everybody with sense knows it. Nutter and Obama both came in on the same horse, called "Disappointment." Unless we the people demand our rights and those of our children, we won't even have real schools in 10 years--just corporate run ones called charters which care about profit, first, last and only. The Wall Street Protesters etc. are a step in the right direction and we need much more of that. Charters are an easy, trendy way for the crooks to skim money from the poor to themselves through the pretext of School Choice--What a SCAM !! Can you say, Imhotep?? They're all like that and all clear thinking BUSINESS people know it.
Submitted by Garth (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 16:22.
I'm concerned about the upcoming school closings meeting for a bunch of reasons, If the PSD closes a high school, can't a charter school then apply to re-open the same building but as a charter instead of a public high school? That doesn't really help our situation much, the charter will then pull kids away from a nearby public school, and then that second school will be in danger of closing/becoming a charter.
Another thing about the whole facility master plan that I find disturbing is the lack of attention to over-crowded schools. I'm a parent of a child at a very crowded school, but shouldn't those schools or the child crammed into them also get some attention? That situation seems to be off the radar completely. Couldn't the PSD consider putting a good school with tons of students with a good reputation but in a really small building into a larger building that is about to be closed? Maybe that makes too much sense, I often go to bad schools and I think this is a beautiful facility, it's too bad hardly anyone wants to go to school here.
Post new comment